Talk:HDMI/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

DRM

Is it related with the DRM/encryption? I keep hearing about it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.184.165 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC) . Signature added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. HDMI supports HDCP, which is a form of DRM. HTH. --Heron 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's called HDMI-CP, and will be required to view HD-DVD/Blu-ray movies in Windows Vista.

Wulf 02:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Timestamp fixed by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This should be (and now, 1 Sept 2007, is) clearly stated. The wording has a lot of pro-DRM indirect propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.118.205 (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

HDCP is technically copy protection and it is used by DRM systems such as CSS, CPPM, and AACS. Also Blu-ray movies can be viewed on computers using VGA or component video though in the future they might be downconverted over analog because of the Image Constraint Token. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Extent of Backwards Compatibility

Since DVI connections can support analog and digital signals, it has been unclear to me whether or not one could use a VGA-DVI adapter and a DVI-HDMI adapter in serial in order to connect a VGA source with an HDMI receiver. It now seems to me that this would not work at all, given that HDMI is apparently digital-only. I think that this article would be a good place to put a clarification of this for people like me. I don't want to do the editing myself, though, because I don't really know anything for sure. --Jmacaulay 15:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

----

ANSWER:

Notice that there are 2 type of DVI connectors. One contains digital+analog signals on it (DVI-D). You should only use digital part of it to connect to HDMI. Other type is a digital-only connector, so you cannot connect analog monitors to it. For further reference, try http://www.hardwarebook.net/connector/av/dvi.html

If your VGA provides a DVI connector, then you could connect it to a HDMI monitor with a suitable adaptor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.181.244 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC) . Comment reinstated and signature added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

----

ANSWER:

HDMI is digital only, so no, a VGA source cannot be connected to a digital display via HDMI. As for a DVI source, as there are 2 types of DVI connectors - digital only (DVI-D) and digital+analog (DVI-I), either will drive an HDMI display using a DVI-to-HDMI cable if the source is digital. For further reference, try http://www.hardwarebook.net/connector/av/dvi.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.123.172 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC) . Signature added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Next-Generation consoles

The PS3 will have 2 HDMI connections, I hope the Microsoft will add it soon to their console. (201.145.144.97 22:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)). —Number of connectors was silently altered from 2 to 1 by user 69.12.152.60 04:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC). Original number reinstated, timestamp fixed, and this comment made by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The port on the back of the Xbox 360 is proprietary, so it is conceivible that it can connect to a wire with a HDMI output. However, HDMI is NOT neccissary for any video game, under the realization that you can't just watch a video game like you can watch a movie, and that leting people use a fully HD signal with componet cables or a moniter's cable would actually boost publicity, and thus profits, by advertising for your games. One great example of this is Red vs. Blue. - 68.228.33.74 04:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont know about the xbox, but PS3 will support HDMIver1.3 (both consoles)--sin-man 03:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Indents fixed by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarification

It is independent of the various DTV standards such as ATSC, DVB(-T,-S,-C), as these are encapsulations of the MPEG data streams, which are passed off to a decoder, and output as uncompressed video data, which can be high-definition.

Is this how the other standards work or hdmi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.78.37 (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC). Signature added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Reference of Image Constraint Token lacks, but,I may have gone over the article too quickly http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060521-6880.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs) 09:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC). Signature added and URL made plain by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Is HDMI Type B equivalent to double cabled DVI

Could someone please provide a photo of the new HDMI Type B connector? HDMI Type A is equivalent to DVI Dual Link; Is HDMI Type B equivalent to the double cabled connections used for large digital monitors i.e. Apple and Dell's 30" widescreen models? Will we see latched HDMI (part of UDI (Unified Display Initiative))) replace DVI on computers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.123.172 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC). Signature added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

According to the article, Type A HDMI is compatible with single link DVI-D and Type B HDMI is compatible with dual link DVI-D. If this isn't true, the article needs to be fixed. Herorev 07:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC) . Correct indent by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Licensing

I think there should be some discussion of licensing, and how that has triggered the DisplayPort and UDI efforts. --Belltower —Preceding comment actually posted by 141.157.52.131 18:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC). This comment and timestamp by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

That would be a fairly complex issue and some of it is less than clear cut. For instance DisplayPort is currently license/royalty free but at any time the companies that made it could exert there patents on it. Furthermore HDMI licensing is $10,000 yearly with only a 4 cents royalty per HDMI device (regardless of the number of HDMI connections) so except for the smallest of companies it is not even an issue. Also as of May 2008 the UDI website has been down for several months and looks to have been dead for at least the last year. UDI was basically just a stripped down version of HDMI 1.3 that tried to remove some of the features to reduce the licensing costs. When several of the computer companies though decided they wanted it completely license/royalty free and joined up with DisplayPort I think all development on it died. Personally I don't see any problem with that since HDMI 1.3 is perfectly capable of being a computer interface. Whether it will end up being widely used as one though is another matter. --GrandDrake (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it not relevant to HDMI that "HDMI licensing is $10,000 yearly with a 4 cents royalty per HDMI device"? I think it is. I recommend adding (or returning) that information to the article. ---Ransom (--67.91.216.67 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

Agree - I accidentally stumbled upon the licensing issue, and was surprised not to see it in the article. --Yurik (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Improvement over other Interfaces

I need a technical explanation for why any other interface (specifically HDMI) on the DTE side of a cable box would be better than the standard coax connection. The cable feed arrives through a coax connection, so how can a different interface from the cable box to the HDTV provide a better quality picture and sound? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Switchman4 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC) . Signature added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

ANSWER: The cable box is tuning digital cable not analog this is the key to why these interfaces are better than standard coax. With new display technologies such as DLP, LCD, LCoS, and plasma able to recieve digital signals and DVI and HDMI able to transmit uncompressed digital signals the TV is receiving the most error free signal possible. If you were to use the RF output or even sVideo or baseband outputs of a cable box the box must first receive and decode the digital signal, than do a digital to analog conversion and remodulate the signal for use on an analog input on a television. As you can guess you lose information in doing that, not to mention these outputs are not capable of high definition. Even though the YPbPr outputs are capable of 1080i output there is a D-to-A conversion that has inherent signal degradation. With HDMI able to transmit multi-channel digital audio as well as HD video, not to mention the use of EDID handshaking, I think I would use it over remod coax. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.188.33.222 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC). Modified wording "loose" to "lose" by Mattbrundage 20:44, 1 March 2007. Original timestamp added and comment made by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Even a cable box which takes in video content in analog form (the cheaper subscription to cable TV!) will benefit the user in the picture on the screen. The analog signal is converted one time, in the set-top box, and then sent to the TV in digital form over HDMI (as the previous append explains). The analog-to-digital conversion in the set-top box is quite good, in most cases, even though the incoming analog content is limited to SDTV, and not HDTV.Calbookaddict 05:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is true, however it needs to be said that SD content on an HD TV looks terrible. This is because the TV or STB is forced to interpolate (intelligently make up) pixels that dont exist in the video signal. In reality analog sevices look the best on 480i analog TV's. I have seen too many people spend 2000 dollars on a TV and refuse to get HD cable service, this is an enormous waste of money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.69.145 (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to "SD content on an HDTV looks terrible"... "Everything looks better on an HDTV. Even non-HD broadcast TV looks better, thanks to a technial marvel called "upscaling," plus several other technical innovations. -Bill Machrone (columnist/contributing editor PC Magazine), writing in The Wall Street Journal, Jan 7, 2008, page s1. -Dawn McGatney, Jan 7, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGatney (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

—Extra indents added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Compatibility

Will an HDMI 1.3 cable work to its fullest using an HDMI 1.2 female connector? --StealthHit06 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Username added by GrandDrake 00:54, 2 July 2008. Timestamp added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

HDMI is limited to the lowest common denominator so if an HDMI 1.3 device is connected to an HDMI 1.2 device the capabilities of the connection are limited to HDMI 1.2. If your asking if the cable itself will work than it will though the bandwidth it can handle depends on whether it is a Category 1 or Category 2 cable. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Unified Display Interface

Why? --Heron 17:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

First version

Was 1.1 the first version, or was there a 1.0? -- Mattbrundage 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Added 1.0 specs -- Mattbrundage 15:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

HDCP

Any knowledgeable person knows that HDMI is just a part of the CARROT (High Definition) that the ones in the business (Hollywood, MPAA, "content providers" and others) are putting in front of the ASS (the consumer), to lure it to the PATH (enforcing draconian DRMs and limiting the consumers' freedom) they want.

The other parts would be, of course, Blu-ray, HD-DVD or whatever other stupid format with a bazillion times more storage capacity, while the bitrate of the content (movie) is also raised to a bazillion times more (to keep one movie per disk), and all the HD paraphernalia (TVs, BD players...). And, of course, they'll come with DRMs built-in.

To me, HDCP should be much more predominantly mentioned in the article. The whole point of the HD "revolution" is to enforce DRMs (and sell in Blu-ray format movies that where already sold in DVD, and before that in VHS). At least the VHS->DVD step WAS revolutionary. Blu-ray and their kind ONLY offer higher resolution, at the price of unacceptable DRMs. This should be made prominent! Isilanes 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC). Modified wording "VCDs" to "BD players" 09:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC). This comment by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It is useful to point out that, as of the HDMI 1.3a Specification, with its Compliance Test Spec, there is a requirement that any HDMI system which implements HDCP must do so in a way fully-compliant with the HDCP Specification. Earlier versions of the HDMI Spec did not explicitly require that HDCP implementations be tested to be fully compliant, in order to attain compliance to the HDMI Spec itself. This enhancement in HDMI 1.3a will greatly improve interoperability among HDMI systems (those tested to HDMI 1.3a), so that the end user's experience improves. Ideally, the end user should never see HDCP turning on or off, nor any visual or aural effects of HDCP.Calbookaddict 05:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there are no commercially available Compliance Test Equipment devices. There is one company, Simplay Labs LLC (a subsidiary of Silicon Images, who holds the market for HDMI chips) that offers HDCP compliance testing based upon their own SimplayHD Compliance Test specification (EETimes article, Consumer testing hijacked?). The SimplayHD Compliance Test Specification is not available for free or for purchase. The downside that I see is that without having the SimplayHD CTS, there is no assurance that it is compliant to the HDCP Compliance Test Specification. --IlliniFlag 17:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that the HDCP Compliance Test Specification used by the authorized test centers worldwide is available on the web at http://www.digital-cp.com/specs/HDCPSpecificationComplianceTestSpecification1_1.pdf. Intel wrote the original HDCP Spec, and continues to maintain it. They have provided this compliance test spec in recent months. It is true, as stated earlier, that test equipment to perform the tests in the CTS is not available. But the definitions of the test in the referenced PDF file (133 pages) go a long way to showing how compliance is checked.Calbookaddict 02:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

—Indents added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection) An encryption system for enforcing digital rights management (DRM) over DVI and HDMI interfaces. The copy protection system (DRM) resides in the computer, DVD player or set-top box. If it determines the video material must be protected, it encrypts the signal via HDCP and transmits it to the display system, which decrypts it.
HDCP enforces copyrights of content that flows through HDMI/DVI connections. HDCP is essentially a way to get the device makers follow the wishes of content providers. Device makers must get licenses that will equip their devices with licensed keys. These keys will enable them to receive and display encrypted content. To get the license, they agree to honor flags in the content that will generally limit the storage and re-transmission of content.
HDCP was originally developed by Intel Corporation. It is now published and maintained by Digital Content Protection.
There is an incompatibility between HDCP enforcing transmitters and receivers that are not HDCP enabled. Now as the standard evolves, each generation will continue to see the same compatibility problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.162.160.31 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC) . Formatting fixed on last paragraph by NeoChaosX 10:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC). Paragraphs fixed using line break code by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

More HDCP

It's also worth noting that HDMI doesn't require that content be encrypted. The content provider (Blu-Ray disc, cable company, etc.) has to set a flag to instruct the source to encrypt content. For instance, plain old DVDs do not need to be copy protected. I've come across several HDMI-enabled up-converting DVD players that don't support/require HDCP. Then again, there are other players out there that just take the "safe" route and HDCP-protect everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.113.104 (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC) . Headline made into fork of above, and signature added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

TIME CODE

Could someone put a paragraph in about time code? Normal HD-SDI has time code. Does HDMI have timecode? If not, are there any plans to include it in updates? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.56.184 (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC). Post reinstated by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Unlike HD-SDI, HDMI does not provide time coding within the protocol. One could time the transfer of video data by counting frames (of course, also knowing the frame rate). the InfoFrame Packet structures specified in HDMI do include a generic InfoFrame, which could be loaded with time-stamp data, but this would be a vendor-specific solution and not compatible among different, disassociated vendors.

Calbookaddict 00:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Cable Costs

I keep hearing from technically inclined friends that since HDMI uses a digital signal, your TV will either work perfectly or not at all. They say that a $5 cable will work as well as the argon-filled, platinum plated, precision balanced, fairy dust sprinkled $80 ones. Maybe some one should comment on that in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.217.75.174 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Since the article is not a buyers guide, it seems inappropriate to make a generic claim, even though it might be helpful to people considering buying equipment. Its worth nothing the article does already mention that any cable which can meet the transmission specs is appropriate (it just doesn't explicitly say "regardless of the cost"). - Davandron | Talk 22:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple of sentences to the criticisms section addressing the cost issue. The difference in cable prices is extreme enough that it's made it to some major blogs. If you google for "hdmi cables", 3 of the top 10 links talk about the cost issue. Searching for "hdmi cable scam" gives 300K results. I think it belongs in the article. Being helpful to buyers is just a little bonus.68.8.110.219 06:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

HDMI versus Component

I think it would be helpful if their could be a section that compares HDMI to Component. I think this is something that people, including myself, often wonder about. While I realize HDMI is digital while component is analog, it's not clear what kind of difference this makes to image quality. Attila226 — Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC) . Timestamp added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question. -Indolences 16:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Think abou it. You picture is in digital format on your DVD or Blu-Ray disk, it's then got to be converted to analog component parts to be sent up a component cable, assuming you have a digital panel, you then need to recompile the picture and resample it back into a digital picture to display on your digital panel.. Lots of conversion and messing around with signals.. For HDMI, it's a pure digital signal path.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgillespie (talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I have verified with Sony that at least on their Bravia LCD HDTVs, Closed Captioning cannot be interpreted by their HDTV if the signal is supplied through an HDMI input. Their Knowledge Articles referencing this lack are C352674 and C83284. Unless the set-top box or the DVD player interprets Closed Captioning themselves and passes it on in the video output, the HDTV will not perform this function with HDMI as input. The suggestion if the set-top box or the DVD cannot do this, one must use a Component, S-Video, or Composite connection. I have seen little discussion of this problem elsewhere in HDMI discussions, and since Closed Captioning can be very important to the hearing-impaired, I'm passing what I've learned along. Perhaps someone else can comment further on this or discuss when and if an HDMI Closed Caption Standard and implementation will be forthcoming. This may be one reason to choose a Component connection instead of HDMI presently. Jwdening (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture request

Can you add a close-up picture of the end connector to the article along with something to compare its size to like a USB or (a context appropriate) DVI end connector or even just a ruler? Even better would be the inclusion of a picture of a HDMI female port. Just saying because based on the pictures included in the article right now I would be hard pressed to recognize it instantly in the wild if I were to come across it in a context free situation. --70.51.229.95 23:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of focus - a limitation on my camera - but here's a picture with a ruler. The HDMI plug is on the left, the USB plug is on the right.Calbookaddict 01:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• 
  HDMI plug (left) compared to USB plug (right)

Even out of focus, the image looks right as a thumbnail. I've added it to the article. That was really quick response! Great job! --70.51.229.95 01:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What units is the ruler measuring in? Looks too big to be cm, must be some archaic unit :-) TiffaF 06:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The units are inches. I would have thought that the finer divisions of length, being into eighths and sixteenths, would be a dead giveaway that it's not centimeters and millimeters. Sorry, American-centric habit, I suppose. Can someone explain to me why IC packages have dimensions in metric units, while PCB dimensions are in English units? Go figure.Calbookaddict 05:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is also a Type C connector (and plug) defined in the HDMI 1.3 Specification. It's smaller than the Type A shown in the picture. I don't have one here at home, but they're available already.Calbookaddict 05:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the original 1970's Texas Instruments 7400 series chips had 0.1 inch pin spacing, and it stuck as a standard, though it is now quoted as "2.54 mm". Newer smaller chip designs are in metric.

BTW, I looked up this article because I noticed all the flat screen TVs and DVD players in my local shops suddenly now have HDMI connections, and at least one DVD player did not have a Scart output. Looks like analogue Scart is being phased out in favour of digital HDMI. TiffaF 07:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Manier?

Just for clarification, in the criticism section is "manier" supposed to be "more"? This is not an English word, and I can find no reference to this through an online search (except that it appears to be a word in other languages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.244.66 (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC). Signature added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

He's just trying to say "more many", since "many" is obviously an adjective (note the -y ending). Points for trying, I guess. "plugfest events (i.e. manufacturer conferences)" seems like a false appositive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.10.74 (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC). Signature added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Confusion?

I have an HDMI labelled Toshiba progressive-scan DVD (and a bajillion other formats) player. I do NOT have any HDMI capable receivers or television. The DVD player has HDMI, component (RGB), S-Video, and A/V (yellow) video outputs, as well as RCA, Digital and Optical audio outputs. The RCA and Optical audio outputs work normally, but I can't seem to get a signal out of the video to save my life. Am I out of luck without an HD tv or receiver? --Snicker^|¥°^€| 03:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This question is not related to the article itself. Ask the question in an A/V forum (such as this. -- Mattbrundage 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

New table problems

The max color depth information is inaccurate, it is true that RGB is limited on earlier versions to 24 bits but AFAIK all versions of HDMI can do 30 and 36 bit 4:2:2 component. --Ray andrew 04:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is consistent with what I have read, and also some of the text elsewhere in the post: "Pixel encodings: RGB 4:4:4, YCbCr 4:4:4 (8-16 bits per component); YCbCr 4:2:2 (12 bits per component)" but someone changed my table.

The General Notes state that "8-channel uncompressed digital audio at 192 kHz sample rate with 24 bits/sample". I interpret this as 8 ch, 192kHz, 24 bits is available at the same time. Is this true? In that case, the table could be simplified.

The table originally was supposed to display why and when anyone would need HDMI 1.3 with all exceptions, but now that clarity is lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knutinh (talk • contribs) 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC). Indent and signature added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct about the audio, 8 ch of 192kHz @ 24bit is available with any video mode. I agree that the table has been made to complicated, and I would suggest if there is no objections that we trim it to just the major revisions (1.0,1.1,1.2,1.3) --Ray andrew 18:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

hdmi versions

the hdmi versions on the article doesnt make any sense to me. Hope this helps....

Specifications, Versions, and Capabilities

HDMI version 1.0 met the goals of the HDMI Working Group and provided a true one-cable solution for uncompressed HD video and multi-channel audio including Dolby Digital and DTS bit streams (more on format support later).

Version 1.0

HDMI v1.0 was the original format, released in December 2002. It took DVI's video signal format and added in the ability to carry a Dolby Digital or DTS bitstream or only two channels of PCM audio (48kHz, 24-bit). The two-channel PCM restriction worked fine for connections between cable/satellite receivers or DVD players and a stand-alone HDTV (which only supported two channels of audio) but it wouldn't be able to support the new audio formats that were slated to accompany HD optical discs (HD-DVD and Blu-ray). Adoption of HDMI v1.0 was sluggish, as DVI-HDCP had a headstart in the market. It didn't help that HDMI shares DVI's cable length restriction – anything more than about 15 meters violates the specification and is likely to require either a booster or a conversion to fiber optic.

2. Version 1.1

It was with Version 1.1 (released in May 2004) that HDMI was finally able to make a compelling argument for superceding DVI-HDCP. HDMI could now carry multichannel PCM audio (eight channels at 192kHz, 24-bit) in addition to Dolby Digital and DTS compressed bitstreams. Version 1.1 also added support for passing the bitstream data from DVD-Audio discs, which previously had to be decoded inside the player and output as six channels of analog or passed as a bitstream through IEEE-1394 (also called FireWire or iLink, a connection type that never saw widespread adoption).
HDMI 1.1 was a relatively minor update. The primary feature was to add some packets of audio-related content protection information. These packets were required by DVD-Audio in order to permit DVD-Audio content transmission on HDMI. HDMI 1.0 had the audio and video bandwidth and capabilities and HDCP already had the content protection capabilities, but there was some data that the DVD-Audio folks wanted to send to HDMI/HDCP sinks to tell them not to send the DVD-Audio content elsewhere.

3. Version 1.2

HDMI v1.2 was adopted in August 2005 (v1.2a was adopted in December 2005 and added some testing and certification language). The only notable difference between it and v1.1 is support for a DSD (one bit audio) digital bitstream. This means that a player can now send the raw digital signal from an SACD over HDMI to a receiver or processor, eliminating the need for decoding of the DSD signal at the player.
As for HDMI 1.2, several companies have requested enhancements to the HDMI spec that are being considered by the HDMI Founders, but these items are, by agreement, not permitted to be discussed publicly until the specification is released. The HDMI Founders designed the HDMI specification to be dynamic. As such, HDMI has plenty of extra bandwidth to accommodate future audio and video requirements, and the Founders are committed to evaluating and updating the specification to accommodate new audio and video formats that may be introduced in the foreseeable future.

The HDMI 1.2 specifications are:

• Support for One Bit Audio format, such as SuperAudio CD's DSD (Direct Stream Digital)
• Changes to offer better support for current and future PCs with HDMI outputs, including:
• Availability of the widely-used HDMI Type A connector for PC sources and displays with full support for PC video formats
• Ability for PC sources to use their native RGB color-space while retaining the option to support the YCbCr CE color-space
• Requirement for HDMI 1.2 and later displays to support future low-voltage (i.e., AC-coupled) sources, such as those based on PCI Express I/O technology

4. Version 1.3

The HDMI 1.3 specification more than doubles HDMI’s bandwidth and adds support for Deep Color technology, a broader color space, new digital audio formats, automatic audio/video synching capability (“lip sync”), and an optional smaller connector for use with personal photo and video devices. The update reflects the determination of the HDMI founders to ensure HDMI continues evolving ahead of future consumer demands. New HDMI 1.3 capabilities include:

• Higher speed: HDMI 1.3 increases its single-link bandwidth from 165MHz (4.95 gigabits per second) found on Version 1.1 to 340 MHz (10.2 Gbps) to support the demands of future high definition display devices, such as higher resolutions, Deep Color and high frame rates. In addition, built into the HDMI 1.3 specification is the technical foundation that will let future versions of HDMI reach significantly higher speeds.
• Deep color: HDMI 1.3 supports 30-bit, 36-bit and 48-bit (RGB or YCbCr) color depths, up from the 24-bit depths in previous versions of the HDMI specification.
• Lets HDTVs and other displays go from millions of colors to billions of colors
• Eliminates on-screen color banding, for smooth tonal transitions and subtle gradations between colors
• Enables increased contrast ratio
• Can represent many times more shades of gray between black and white. At 30-bit pixel depth, four times more shades of gray would be the minimum, and the typical improvement would be eight times or more
• Broader color space: HDMI 1.3 removes virtually all limits on color selection.
• Next-generation “xvYCC” color space supports 1.8 times as many colors as existing HDTV signals
• Lets HDTVs display colors more accurately
• Enables displays with more natural and vivid colors
• New mini connector: With small portable devices such as HD camcorders and still cameras demanding seamless connectivity to HDTVs, HDMI 1.3 offers a new, smaller form factor connector option.
• Lip Sync: Because consumer electronics devices are using increasingly complex digital signal processing to enhance the clarity and detail of the content, synchronization of video and audio in user devices has become a greater challenge and could potentially require complex end-user adjustments. HDMI 1.3 incorporates an automatic audio/video synching capability that allows devices to perform this synchronization automatically with accuracy.
• New lossless audio formats: In addition to HDMI’s current ability to support high-bandwidth uncompressed digital audio and currently-available compressed formats (such as Dolby® Digital and DTS), HDMI 1.3 adds additional support for new, lossless compressed digital audio formats Dolby® TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio™.
  

Its bandwidth will be upgraded from 165MHz to 225MHz (but can go up to 450MHz if necessary). The increased bandwidth enables displays to handle 1080i at 60Hz with 36-bit RGB color or 1080p with 90Hz refresh rate with 36-bit color. The new HDMI 1.3 will also support Dolby HD and DTS-HD audio standards (v1.2 only supports Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS standards). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.162.160.31 (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) . Formatting fixed by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I would mention that two of the statements in that post are wrong. The statement that HDMI version 1.0 was limited to "only two channels of PCM audio" is a common misconception and HDMI has always been capable of up to 8 channels of PCM audio at 24-bits/192-kHz. The statement that HDMI cables over "15 meters violates the specification" is also wrong since there is no fixed limit for HDMI cables. --GrandDrake (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Common connecting examples...

I would like to know when I need this kind of connection and what connects to what... now that I know what HDMI is...

Example... I have a Comcast digital cable box with a HDMI connector on it. I have a LCD TV that has a HDMI connector on it. Both devices also have coax connections. The signal arrives via the coax to the cable box. So, do I need the HDMI to get the best picture or is the coax connection from the cable box to the TV as equal to/better than/worst than the HDMI connection? If equal to or better than HDMI, then why is there a HDMI connection on the cable box in the first place?

Would the cable box HDMI be used to connect to the DVD-R to record movies in HD?

(long winded - sorry) So HDMI is used to connect: DVD/bluray player to TV only? cable box to anything?? DVD camera to TV?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.98.246.21 (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your coax cable is carrying the "cable" content, either analog or digital, to the set-top box. I'm not sure about the purpose of the output coax cable from the cable box. But the HDMI output allows direct connection to the TV, to an A/V Receiver, to an HDMI switch, etc. A single HDMI cable carries the video and the audio, as well as control information.Calbookaddict 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Indent added by Mattbrundage 16:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC), this extra comment by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Vista?

It is mentioned in the article "a PC running Windows Vista". As I understand it, that is not really true. Since I am a Linux user myself, and interested in buying a laptop, I googled to find if this is true. A mailing list claims that, for example, a Linux box could also use HDMI. It is probably confused with HDCP, that runs over HDMI/DVI, which is 'supposed' to provide an encrypted link between the monitor and the signal source. So, an article on HDMI as an interface itself should be unrelated of HDCP, thus I find the quote "a PC running Windows Vista" misleading. Any PC could use it without HDCP. Am I wrong? - Ioannis Gyftos 146.124.141.250 11:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC) My source: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.hardware/browse_thread/thread/ac75fd4c2a0bec2e/41bb694d8cb7f876

HDCP is not a requirement of HDMI. Content protection is a requirement placed by the content owners, and may apply only to certain video modes (e.g., high-definition). One's own video content can be sent without content protection.

PCs can provide HDMI outputs, with or without HDCP support. The mainline graphics card providers - ATi, nVidia and Intel - all provide graphics cards or motherboards with HDMI putputs. I have not kept up on the details, but googling "HDMI graphics card" resulted in this hit: http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/972/three_hdmi_graphics_cards_tested_on_lcd_tv/index.html

Of course, it must be said that these mainline providers may supply only Windows drivers. A search, or inquiries to those companies, should reveal if there are Linux drivers for their graphics solutions.Calbookaddict 15:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Linux kernel easily detects an HDMI output as DVI. And since my graphics card apparently isn't responsible for audio, I dont believe that HDMI through windows would be any different. Yesterday I bought that laptop and it works in displaying in my LCD-TV through HDMI. So I'll go ahead and remove the Vista restriction. Could provide photos, but I don't know if that would be convincing. - Ioannis Gyftos 146.124.141.250 09:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

—Indents added and pointless linebreak to URL removed by Mattbrundage 16:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC), this extra comment by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Unclear how DVI signal is helped by using HDMI cables

In the HDMI page it mentions that HDMI cables can carry a DVI signal, via an adapter. Does using the HDMI cable overcome the DVI distance limitation, or are boosters still needed? Does using an HDMI cable have any other effects on a DVI signal? I am curious, but would also find this useful for the articles in question. --Alphastream 03:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Actually posted 20:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC) by User:Alphastream. Correction by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

HDMI has the same limitations, but realisticaly its not much of a limitation. I have a good 50 foot run that works perfectly with no signal boosters or anything. --Ray andrew (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1440P Confusion

So what is 1440P and what is it used for? This page mentions it and has a link for it but it just redirects you to the hdtv page. Seems kind of pointless to do that considering 1440P is not even mentioned on that page. A page needs to be created specifically for 1440P just like all of the other resolutions already have. Dvferret (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First time I heard about 1440p was back in 2006 when Chi Mei Optoeletronics, a Chinese CE company, said they would come out with a 47" LCD in the second quarter of 2007 that would have it for the native resolution. I don't think it was ever released to consumers and I can't even find a price for it. Currently there is no indication that it will be used in either consumer displays or computer displays. The most recent 1440p news I can think of was when Gateway made a bit of a stink by stating that their WQXGA (2560x1600) computer display was the world's first "Quad-HD" display which was a rather silly claim to make considering how many other WQXGA displays had been released. Also agree with you that the re-direction of 1440p to the HDTV page doesn't make any sense and that 1440p needs to be made into its own page. --GrandDrake (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cable costs - explanation?

At my local electronics store the other day I noticed that one brand of cables was separated by bandwidth - the cheaper cables only let you send low resolutions like 720p, but the more expensive ones went up to and past 1080p. Maybe this explains some of the cable cost differences? 138.38.154.9 (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it does but not always.Dvferret (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

New problem...

________________________________________________________________________________________

I have a HD ready tv, a dvd player that can support high definition. If i connected each other by a hdmi cable does that mean i can watch dvds in high definition if i put a high defintion dvd in. Plus if i can is it true i can only play hd movies on blu ray? Finally if i cannot do i have to by a dish for it?

Thanks

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.214.192 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC) . Formatting fixed by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

HDMI Flashing Picture Problem

Digital Rights Management is partially achieved by detecting attempts to circumvent security established for a high-definition session between two devices. For example, a HDMI-jack-equipped DVD player sending a signal to a HDMI-jack-equipped TV over a HDMI cable involves a session during which the two devices continually exchange a security token, thereby permitting detection of the case where a session is hijacked and bits are diverted to a unsecure device. Well, it turns out sometimes this token does not arrive when or as expected. The DVD player and TV combination causes the picture to blink from picture-to-black-to-picture rapidly and continuously. This makes the program material unwatchable. The attempt by the electronics industry, working hand-in-hand with the large media companies, to protect copyright produces an effect that should only be seen by those who are attempting to steal high definition content. Probably because of different interpretations of the HDMI standard, incompatibilities arise that cause the all-or-nothing system to break down. Perhaps this issue deserves coverage in the wiki. Many users encounter this problem and do not know that its root cause is poor management of HDMI and DRM deployment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.240.13 (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:High-Definition Multimedia Interface/GA. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article has met the Good Article criteria and has therefore been passed. Gary King (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

CEC

Could we elaborate the CEC section? Or create a separate CEC page? It seems like a pretty involved topic. Some basic questions on CEC: Does it allow a device (like a receiver) to essentially handle much of the functionality of a universal remote by sending control signals over HDMI instead of IR? What functionality is in the core CEC specification? And what kinds of functionality is added by manufacturer specific proprietary extensions (Bravia Link, NetCommand, etc.)? Interoperability and limitations when using components from different manufacturers (Pioneer DVD player and Sony receiver). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gthiruva (talk • contribs) 05:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

HDMI Switches

I think we also need a section that explains what an HDMI switch is and how it compares and relates to a receiver when plugged into the receiver's HDMI input port. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gthiruva (talk • contribs) 05:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

HDMI CAble

Please can any body confirm that HD TV can connected with Laptop through HDMI Cable

Thanks SIMRAN SINGH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.48.69 (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Connector Sexes Backwards, Why?

Okay, I understand that the encyclopedia needs to describe things in a way that reflects the industry standards, so I'm not disputing this Wiki's use of which connector type is "male" vs. "female." But I am, however, still just curious about it. These are my questions:

1. With other cables I've seen, the MALE end is the one where there is a center pin or set of pins plugging into a jack where there's a receiving hole in the center, whether or not there's also a female-like sheathe of some kind around the connector pins. For examples: coaxial cables (F, RCA, etc.), DIN cables (S-video, some older rounded computer cable plugs, etc.), "D" plugs, and DVI. Of course there would be others, too. Okay, so the one with the pins has been male, while the one that the pins plug into is female, even if the one with the holes fits into an outer casing that the one with the pins is in.

Well, that's been true up until HDMI came out, apparently. Look at HDMI and what the industry is calling its "female" and "male" ends. They're calling the end with the pin row the female end, and the end with the slot that the row of pins plugs into the "male" end (and keep in mind that the end with the bar of pins is also the end with a female-like casing around it, just as I pointed out above, yet those above like that are still MALE; yes, the slotted end of HDMI sort-of plugs into the sheathed-like end, but then so do several of those others I mentioned above which were always called FEmale, because what really counts has been the PINS, not the edges. So why isn't HDMI's PIN end the one called MALE like the others?

2. Who is it in the industry that first insisted that this slotted end of HDMI should be called backwards of other kinds of plugs, the "male" end, and that the end with the pins in the middle should be called backwards of other connectors, the "female" end? Who from the industry started that and sort-of "dictated" to encyclopedias, etc. that this is "how it's supposed to be," and what made them the supposed "authority"?

Thanks,
Mike
Member "Maxx Fordham" — Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC) , link User:MaxxFordham. – Time added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You are mistaken about which HDMI connector has pins and I would recommend reading section 4.1.9 of the HDMI 1.3 specifications. That section has connector drawings for the HDMI plug (marketed as male) and HDMI receptacle (marketed as female). Also the HDMI 1.3 specifications never uses the terms "male" or "female" and instead uses the terms "plug" and "receptacle". --GrandDrake (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How am I supposedly "mistaken" about which connector has the pins, when I can see as plain as day that they're in a bar in the middle of the connector that the industry calls "female," which poke into the slot on the end that the industry is calling "male," the same way as the one pin in a coaxial cable (on the end appropriately named "MALE") pokes into the hole in the appropriately-named FEMALE end?

Where, exactly, on the web, would I find this drawing you're talking about?

Mike "Maxx Fordham" — Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC) – Time added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

In the distant past when I was writing instruction manuals, there was a specific reason for identifying the connectors at the ends of cables and on equipment. It generally related to where a connector had a voltage present when the two mating connectors were engaged, so as a consequence, in the home for example, a wall connector was designated as a socket or receptable and the connector on a device that was engaged into it was a plug. And often the pins on these connectors were identified as female and male respectively for obvious reasons.

Reynardartique (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Reynardartique 18:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but what about cables that don't supply a plain kind of power--the signal-only cables such as coaxial ones like RCA and F? Their end with the pin that pokes into the hole is called male for an obvious reason, and their end with the hole that receives the pin is called female for the obvious reason, even though the sheath that the female end plugs into is on the male end, the same way as it is with DVI (male with pins, female with holes).

With any kind of electric-based cable, there's always some kind of voltage that comes across them, if only the signals themselves, so obviously many cables don't carry a supply of power, but most still refer to the end with the center that plugs into the middle of the other end as the male end. So it appears to me that what mattered more until HDMI and USB and perhaps FireWire came out, that's what mattered more for the designation--the middle part of one end plugging into the hole on the other end. So still, why not for HDMI and USB (since again, plenty of cables don't carry a supply of power but still went by that designation)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxxFordham (talk • contribs) 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC) – Signature added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC).

I agree that the male/female naming in the article is counter-intuitive. At least some clarification in the article would be in order. (we just had a purchase recommendation on some forum for someone needing a DVI-HDMI adapter and he got the wrong version, since everyone agreed that the HDMI receptor on the TV is male) --Xerces8 (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Indents fixed by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

DRM??

Why is there no mention of DRM? I'm not an expert so I shouldn't contribute, but there are very strong claims of future implementation of DRM through a flag which degrades quality on untrusted hardware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.79.38.235 (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The HDMI article has a section on HDCP and in the HDCP section it mentions that AACS is one of the DRM systems that requires HDCP for encrypted content. Also the flag you have heard about is the Image Constraint Token and it is a part of AACS. --GrandDrake (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment. HDMI is not so much a cable as it is a philosophy of control. This article makes no mention of that philosophy. That flag does exist, I've seen degraded signals myself when playing a video on a laptop to a television over HDMI...switching to VGA provided a clear picture. There should be a criticisms section as there are in many articles about consumer technologies. This section should include information about the numerous and significant disadvantages of HDMI and HDCP. Without the inclusion of these criticisms this article reads like a promotional piece for HDMI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintermute11 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal computers and HDMI

I would like a table listing PC chip sets, graphics cards and other devices listing:

Product	Audio					Video					General
	spdif-spec audio	Maximum LPCM spec	PAP	DTS-HD Master Audio	Dolby TrueHD	PVP	1080@50p	1080@60p	1080@24p	supports > 8bpp	hardware A/V synchronization
Product X	yes	8 channels and 16 bit/48kHz	no	no	no	yes	yes	yes	no	no	yes

I believe that such a list can be compiled based on open, reliable sources like manufacturer data. But I dont want to do the tedious work if such a list is considered bad practice. So what do you think? (Knutinh (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

The idea sounds good though it would have to go into its own Wikipedia article such as "List of HDMI computer devices". --GrandDrake (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A list very similar to my idea can be found here: Factual & Unbiased HTPC HDMI HD Audio + Video Roundup Thread

Windows XP and Vista with current drivers

Feature

IGP Intel G35

IGP Intel G45

IGP ATI 3200

ATI 4XXX series

ATI 3XXX series

ATI 2XXX series

IGP nVidia 8200/8300

IGP nVidia 9300/9400

Asus Xonar HDAV Audio Card

Asus Xonar HDAV Deluxe Audio Card

Asus Slimline Card

Auzen HDMI Card

All Nvidia Based Graphics cards

Slot Type

IGP

IGP

IGP

PCI-E

PCI-E

PCI-E

IGP

IGP

PCI-E

PCI-E

-

PCI-E

-

Blu-ray DTS-MA Bitstreaming

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

*(1)

*(1)

-

-

X

Blu-ray DD True-HD Bitstreaming

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

*(1)

*(1)

-

-

X

Blu-ray DTS-HD Bitstreaming

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

*(1)

*(1)

-

-

X

Blu-ray DD+ Bitstreaming

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

*(1)

*(1)

-

-

X

Blu-ray 7.1 Lossless un-downconverted PCM

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

*(1)

*(1)

-

-

X

Blu-ray 5.1 Lossless un-downconverted PCM

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

*(1)

*(1)

-

-

X

HD-DVD Bitstreaming(All HD formats)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

-

-

X

48 Khz 16 Bit Down Converted 7.1 Channel PCM

Y

Y

X

!(2)

X

X

Y

Y

!(3)

!(3)

-

-

X

48 Khz 16 Bit Down Converted 5.1 Channel PCM

Y

Y

X

!(2)

X

X

U

Y

!(3)

!(3)

-

-

X

Supports bit perfect 192 Khz 24 Bit FLAC with 7.1 Channel PCM

Y

Y

X

Y

X

X

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

X

DD HDMI Bitstreaming

Y

Y

Y

!(2)

!(2)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

*(5)

DTS HDMI Bitstreaming

Y

Y

Y

!(2)

!(2)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

*(5)

7.1 Un-downconverted Analog Output

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

*(8)

-

-

X

24FPS Support

!(4)

!(4)

!(4)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

!(6)

!(6)

-

-

Y

Hardware Video Acceleration

X

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

X

X

-

-

*(7)

Supports PowerDVD

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Supports ArcSoft TMT

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Supports ASUS version of Arcsoft's TMT(Currently the only software that can bitstream HD-Audio)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Y

Y

-

-

X

Supports WinDVD9

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Dual digital monitor output Support

X

X

X

Y

Y

Y

X

X

X

X

-

-

Y

Current Average Street Price

U

U

U

$65-$200

$30-$200

U

U

U

$180-$215

$215-$248

-

-

U

Key:

Y - Works Perfectly

! – Works Inconsistently (See note number below)

& - Works but disables other features (See note number below)

• - Limited Functionality (See note number below)

X – Does not Work

U - Unknown

- Card does not exist yet

(1) The HD Formats can only be bitstreamed in the ASUS version of TMT that can be downloaded from the following website. The software is free but it can only be installed on machines with the Asus HDAV HDMI 1.3. ftp://ftp.asus.com.tw/pub/ASUS/Audio...Xonar_HDAV1.3/

(2) The ATI cards do not support audio over HDMI for some HDMI inputs of some receivers. See this thread for a work around. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15202002 The latest 9.1 ATI Drivers have also resolved this issue for Yamaha receivers.

(3) Users have experienced a DTS Bomb like noise when selecting 7.1 or 5.1 in the Asus version of TMT instead of the HDMI option. Warning it is so loud it can easily damage your speakers! http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx?...age=1&count=11 Look at the very last post on page 1. The latest drivers and TMT software claim to have resolved this issue. I have not experienced it since I have upgraded.

(4) There are some reports of 24p stuttering http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post15249118

(5) Some Nvidia video cards(ie: GTX 280) support SPDIF(Standard Dolby Digital, DTS, and 2 channel PCM) pass through over HDMI.

(6) All 2008 ASUS HDAV cards do not support 24 FPS. However, all 2009 cards do support 24 FPS. See the link below for details on how to tell what card you have. If you have a 2008 card you can RMA it for a 2009 card through your local ASUS supplier. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post15741239

(7) Supported on all 8 series and later GPUs, except for the Geforce 8800 Ultra, 8800 GTX, 8800 GTS (320/640MB). These cards do not support hardware AVC (h264) decoding.

(8) Supports un-downconverted 7.1 analog output only in the ASUS version of TMT.

Knutinh (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cable subsection within Specifications section

Subsections within the "Specifications" section should expand on different areas of the specification. Thus a subsection called "Cable" should deal with the physical cable specifications. Repeating the type of data that the HDMI standard deals with is redundant in this section. Additionally, comments on the price of HDMI cables is not relevant for this article. I propose that this section be deleted for now; if anyone wants to add information on the physical specifications for the actual wire, shielding, and cladding, please feel free to do so. Isaac Lin (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with my proposal, I plan to delete the subsection "Cable" from the "Specifications" section, as it does not contain specification information on the physical wire, shielding, cladding, and so forth. Also note that comments on the price of HDMI cables are not germane to this topic. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Micro HDMI

I've seen a couple Micro HDMI adaptors for mini and full size connectors. Is this a real HDMI spec interface? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the HDMI Founders are currently working on another HDMI connector but currently there are only 3 types of HDMI connectors. Type A which is used on almost all HDMI devices, Type B which is a dual link version of HDMI, and Type C which is the mini HDMI connector for portable devices. --GrandDrake (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking into some micro HDMI connectors (version 1.4 type D), and it seems like the pinout is not the same as the Type A connectors. The main page was a little misleading. Maybe someone with access to the full 1.4 spec can update? For example, Molex p/n 68786-0007 converts from micro HDMI to normal HDMI and doesn't use the same pinouts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.39.126 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Why Windows 7 video modes are relevant for an article on HDMI

I can understand the desire to make an Wikipedia article interesting but an encyclopedia it is supposed to contain clear and objective facts. Changing the video modes of Windows 7 from a list into a general statement makes it shorter but than you leave room for personal interpretation. After all if it simply says "from 16-bit sRGB to 48-bit scRGB" how would people know that scRGB is only supported at 48-bit or that there is an extended color gamut sRGB? Considering that it adds less than a dozen words simply to list the color depths in Windows 7 I would consider it worth while to list them especially since two of the capabilities added to HDMI 1.3 was Deep Color and xvYCC. --GrandDrake (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion. The only relevant part of the Windows 7 spec for someone reading about HDMI is the fact that Windows 7 (similar to Windows Vista) offers several formats in the rgb family with more precision and/or gamut than the common 24-bit sRGB. The point of an article should be to provide the reader with relevant information, and links if they want to dig into related information. Leaving out irrelevant, "noisy" information is nearly as important as including relevant information.

It is a undisputed that Windows 7 supports various color codings with deep color and/or extended gamut up to a maximum of 48 bits per pixel, and that the information of these formats (to an unknown degree?) can be relayed by HDMI. Why say anything more in an article about _HDMI_?

To keep this objective and unbiased, I suggest we try to get a third opinion.

Knutinh (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's my opinion: Information specific to Windows 7 should be detailed in the Windows 7 article series, not here. There shouldn't be more than a couple of sentences on that operating system in this article, as it is talking about one specific implementation amongst a great many that support HDMI. Also, more practically speaking, it avoids duplication. Warren -talk- 14:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There are only 2 sentences about Windows 7 in the HDMI article but since the consensus is that the specifics are not needed I will remove the sentence listing the video modes. --GrandDrake (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:Warren. If MS wishes to impair their software so be it. Electron9 (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

audio over DVI - how? pinout ?

AMD/ATi, nVidia, Intel - all them support sending audion via DVI to HDMI adapter. That means, audio channel is contained within DVI-I ocnnector. But how ? what is the pinout ? how does it not break compatibility - there seems to be no unused pins in DVI-I connector! At very least it is important for cross-compatibility of HDMI-DVI adapters between those computers and notebooks with different videocard chipmakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.12.22 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it looks like they use empty bytes (if they exist) in TMDS protocol. --82.32.201.229 (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

HDMI carries audio as part of the digital bitstream and other than the CDC pin (which is only used for some remote control stuff on high end gear afaict) the pins seem to have a direct correspondence with single link DVI. So given that HDMI and DVI are compatible HDMI over a DVI connector should be compatible with both and support audio when used in conjunction with HDMI. I suspect that is what these graphics cards are doing. 91.135.10.23 (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

HDMI audio is sent in the video blanking intervals of the video signal and the only difference in terms of pinout between single link HDMI and single link DVI is the CEC pin. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The basic answer is likely CEA-861. CEA-861 defines the actual waveforms, timing, and protocols that are used by both HDMI and DVI to transport data. The DVI distribution network (read copper wires) likely just passes on this data to the edge adapter, which interprets it for use on a HDMI distribution network. Int21h (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Maximum refresh rate?

The article gives the maximum resolution for the various HDMI versions, but is silent about refresh rates. I wanted to know what versions (if any) support 1920x1080p @ 120Hz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirror Vax (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC) – Signature added by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

HDMI 1.3 would support that refresh rate since even with CEA video blanking (which uses more video blanking than CVT-RB) 1080p60 requires 148.5 MHz bandwidth while the maximum for HDMI 1.3 is 340 MHz. I have yet to hear of any HDTVs that support 1080p120 input but with the upcoming release of 3D displays that could soon change. --GrandDrake (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

CEA-861-E supports 1080p120 and it requires 297 MHz of bandwidth (pixel rate) including blanking, so yes, in theory HDMI 1.3 should support it. In practive, most transmitters only support up to 225 MHz (1080p60 with 36-bit DeepColor). --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 19:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Does not support PC Mode"

I've seen this on a few televisions and unfortunately advised someone hoping to use their monitor as a TV, and the LG model was advertised with that very purpose in mind, however in small text, in the instructions and nowhere else, "HDMI does not support PC mode" is listed, which sounds rather ridiculous, the article makes no mention of it.

Does anyone know anything about this? Revrant (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

HDMI supports the connection of computers to HDTVs but whether the display can do it well depends on the display. As for what that phrase might mean it would help to know the model number of the display you are referring to. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

PC mode is basically a DVI-compatible connection mode for HDMI, or an analog VGA connection, which uses a set of VESA standard DMT resolutions, as well as EDID with CEA-861 extensions with Display Data Channel. This replaces native CEA-861 support in HDMI mode selection mechanism, which does not use EDID. In you case, HDMI does not support DVI mode and PC resolutions, which probably means you are only able to use them through analog VGA. --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 19:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

PC "mode" seems a wrong word for a problem that is not mentioned here:

PC Level is the full range ("extended") video level of 0 - 255 bit that is output by most PC video cards on DVI and HDMI connections. In home entertainment devices the HDMI connections want lower "normal" video level and will show crunched whites and blacks on their display if fed with PC Level signals.

RGB for digital video is not full range. Instead, video RGB uses a convention with scaling and offsets such that (16, 16, 16) is black, (235, 235, 235) is white, etc. For example, these scalings and offsets are used for the digital RGB definition in CCIR 601.

Klaus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.240.87 (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Indent fixed by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

HDMI vs. Display Port

I think this section needs expansion. On the surface HDMI would appear to be the better connection, but Display Port is releasing version 1.2 with multi monitor support, usb data transfer, and ethernet data transport. Also worth mention is Display Port has higher bandwidth than HDMI. Display Port 1.2 vs HDMI 1.4 --151.190.254.108 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the "Relationship with DisplayPort" section with information on DisplayPort 1.2. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also updated this section with information on DVI/HDMI compatibility in the DisplayPort standard. --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 19:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO This section sounds like an ad for Display Port —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.83.245 (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

HDMI is a highly controlled monopoly, my general understanding is that DisplayPort was created as an alternative to that monopoly. 71.217.8.167 (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead Links

http://www.hdmi.org/download/HDMISpecification13a.pdf and other specs are as dead as english fox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Von Rostock (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the direct link to the HDMI 1.3a specification no longer works though it can still be downloaded for free through the HDMI website. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC) – Edited 01:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC). Date fixed by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

HDMI is over with the arrival of HDBaseT

Sony and other manufacturers will start using HDBaseT instead of HDMI from late 2010 and they say HDMI is 'dead' since HDBaseT is a much better alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.249.241.131 (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Only two of the companies that are listed on the HDBaseT website are consumer electronics (CE) companies (LG and Samsung) and neither of those companies have said anything about replacing HDMI. And though Sony Pictures Entertainment is a founding member of HDBaseT that is only a unit of Sony and a unit that doesn't sell consumer electronics. On the other hand Sony itself is a founding member of HDMI. At the moment there is very little CE support of the HDBaseT standard so the "TV business kisses HDMI goodbye" article you used makes way to many predictions. Here is what you added to the lead section:

HDMI is becoming obsolete with the introduction of a new digital standard called HDBaseT which uses standard Cat5e/6 LAN cable and an RJ-45 connector. The HDBaseT Alliance has just finalised version 1.0 of the spec, and says it will be available for licensing within the second half of 2010.

Besides putting this information in the lead section (where it certainly should not have gone) stating that HDMI is becoming obsolete is making a huge prediction. Though there is a section on DisplayPort that is because it is a widely supported interface for computers. Since there is the possibility that HDBaseT could end up as another failed CE interface I am oppossed to adding it to the HDMI article until it is released. Even than whether it should be mentioned in the HDMI article will depend on the amount of CE support it has. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

HDMI Extender is Unclear

"Active HDMI cables use electronics within the cable to boost the signal and allow for HDMI cables of up to 30 meters (98 ft.).[65] HDMI extenders that are based on dual Category 5/Category 6 cable can extend HDMI to 250 meters (820 ft.), while HDMI extenders based on optical fiber can extend HDMI to 300 meters (980 ft.).[66][67]"

What is dual CAT5/6 and does that automatically imply active? Perhaps: "Active HDMI extenders based on dual ...."

Additionally, don't extenders usually have one female(socket?) connector and one male (plug?) whereas most HDMI cables are male/male? (As the pins get smaller and are recessed, "male/female" becomes ambigous.)

"Several companies offer amplifiers, equalizers, and repeaters that can string several standard HDMI cables together."

Are amplifiers, equalizers and repeaters the same thing -- or at least have the same functional effect? If not, does a simgle company typically or at least frequently offer all of them? Perhaps "and" should be "or" or perhaps some nouns moved inside parentheses?

The repeaters do not string cables together, although they may allow several cables to function when strung together.

I presume that just as some cables are High Speed or Standard, some extenders will link High Speed cables. "Standard" in this context should only be used to differentiate High Speed and non-High Speed cables, not extender versus regular(?). (If I could think of a better word than "regular", I'd offer it.) --108.28.33.175 (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:DisplayPort plus plus.svg

The image File:DisplayPort plus plus.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

3D is possible with HDMI 1.3, only not in full HD.

In the article is stated that HDMI 1.3 cables cannot pass 3D signal. This is not entirely true. http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Industry_Trends/HDMI/3D/HDMI_1.3_Will_Support_3D_After_All/400

"Like most things though, the 3D update for already existing HDMI 1.3 products comes with a catch, and it’s a catch in the form of reduced video quality. While HDMI 1.4 cables and devices will be capable of shooting out 3D pictures in full 1080p, HDMI 1.3 just can’t handle it. The problem is that for a 3D picture, two images have to be shown nearly simultaneously. Since HDMI 1.3 can’t handle two 1080p pictures at that speed, you’ll get two 1080i pictures. It’s not a huge downgrade when all is said and done. The real clincher comes with TV signals. Since cable boxes normally show a 1080i image, they’ll be stepped down to 540i to handle 3D. With HDMI 1.3 cable boxes, you’ll have the choice between HD and 3D, but not both." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfjdaniels (talk • contribs) 07:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The highdefdigest article you quoted is wrong. The article says that full resolution 3D video couldn't be sent with HDMI 1.3 due to bandwidth but it actually was because there were not any defined protocols for sending full resolution 3D video until HDMI 1.4. Both HDMI 1.3 and HDMI 1.4 have the same maximum data bandwidth. As for HDMI 1.3 cables I checked the Wikipedia article and it looks good to me since it mentions that "High Speed HDMI 1.3 cables can support all HDMI 1.4 features except for the HDMI Ethernet Channel". --GrandDrake (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, as GrandDrake said, there's no such thing as 1.3 cables and 1.4 cables. It's either high speed or non-high speed, and any high speed cable can carry full HD 3D. That said, if you ever exceeded a cable's supported bandwidth, you'll have signal dropouts, but how would a cable decide to convert 1080p video to 1080i video? Or 1080i to 540i? HEAVY digital processing is needed to do such thing, you know? And in 3D pictures are not sent "nearly simultaneously". If you read how frame packed 3D works, you'll see each sent frame is the two images stitched together with a filler stripe of pixels in between. --uKER (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC) — Indent fixed by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

HDMI version numbers on HDMI cables are no longer allowed

According to this article - the term HDMI 1.4 is no longer allowed in packaging. http://www.whathifi.com/news/from-today-the-hdmi-14-cable-is-dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.26.59 (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed title to make it more accurate. Title was changed from "HDMI 1.4 is dead" to "HDMI version numbers on HDMI cables are no longer allowed". --GrandDrake (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

HDMI Protocol Analysis Software

Comprehensive MHL/HDMI Protocol Analysis Software

The industry’s first Oscilloscope based TEK-PGY-MHL/HDMI Protocol Analysis software lets you see every event in the MHL/HDMI stream from MHL/HDMI frame to physical layer analog signals which conventional protocol analyzer can not show.

TEK-PGY-MHL/HDMI Protocol Analyzer software performs the MHL/HDMI protocol compliance tests as per MHL CTS 1.1 and HDMI CTS 1.4a. It provides unmatched flexibility in analyzing, debugging, and correlating the test results from MHL/HDMI Frame to physical layer analog waveforms to address the MHL/HDMI design challenges.

For efficient debugging, TEK-PGY-MHL/HDMI software provides unique multi viewer which comprises of frame summary viewer, frame viewer, bus viewer, Protocol viewer, Data Island viewer and Event and test results viewer. Automatic cross-linking between all these viewers enables you to see and correlate the data in different parts of the MHL/HDMI protocol stack

TEK-PGY-MHL/HDMI protocol analysis software along with Tektronix physical layer compliance test solutions and Industry leading Tektronix high performance oscilloscope offers a single box solution for physical and protocol layer testing.

Features

• Industry’s first MHL/HDMI Protocol analysis software offers in-depth visibility from physical layer to video frames with unmatched data correlation between all the layers of MHL/HDMI protocol.
• Transforms the general purpose oscilloscope into sophisticated MHL/HDMI Protocol Analyzer.
• Debugging and troubleshooting made easy by cross-correlating the MHL/HDMI protocol data using frame summary viewer, frame viewer, Bus viewer, data packet and event viewers.
• Frame summary view helps to quickly locate error frames for detailed analysis.
• The Frame Viewer helps to view the transmitted frame with color coded MHL/HDMI operating modes as per the specification and eliminates the need of a Sink device in MHL/HDMI test setup by reproducing transmitted image in Oscilloscope display.
• Bus viewer with the Physical layer analog waveforms offers unmatched flexibility in correlating protocol errors with physical layer.
• The Protocol Viewer displays the tabular view of protocol information with decoded values
• The Event Viewer lists detailed protocol errors and events in the MHL/HDMI compliance tests to quickly locate the protocol failures.
• Raw and detailed packet information in the Data packet viewer helps to identify the problems in Data Island periods.
• Supports 24, 30, 36, and 48 bits per video pixel for HDMI and 24 bits per pixel for MHL.
• Oscilloscope setup assistant automatically sets up the oscilloscope to obtain accurate and reliable test results.
• Performs the protocol Tests as per the MHL Compliance Test specification 1.1, HDMI Compliance Test specification 1.4a and displays quick Pass/Fail results.
• Conforms to HDMI Specification 1.4a and MHL Specification 1.1.
• Supports Oscilloscope live channels, Tektronix .wfm waveform files and .bin (P/A/V file format of HDMI Capture card) files.
• Generates comprehensive and customizable reports.
• Ability to export the analyzed data to .bmp, txt, csv, .bin (P/A/V File format) for advanced analysis.

Oscilloscopes Supported The following Tektronix oscilloscopes are supported:

• Tektronix DPO/MSO/DSA 70000 Series Oscilloscope with Option 20XL

Ordering Information Options:

• TEK-PGY-MHL-PA-SW - MHL Protocol Analysis and Compliance Testing Software
• TEK-PGY-HDMI-PA-SW - HDMI Protocol Analysis and Compliance Testing Software.
• TEK-PGY-MHL-HDMI-PA-SW - MHL and HDMI Protocol Analysis and Compliance Testing Software.

Reference from Prodigy Technovations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itbhat (talk • contribs) 14:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Formatting fixed by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-video use?

I ran across the fact that the stacking connectors on the Dell PowerConnect 5500 series have HDMI connectors on them that seem to be used to transport 10 Gigabit Ethernet (or higher?) over them, as "stacking connectors". See user manual. I am having trouble finding a source for what kind of signal this actually carries. That is, what gets mapped to what pins for this use. I suspect it is the XAUI signal but not sure. Has anyone else heard of such non-video use of them? W Nowicki (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Presumably it's just using an HDMI 1.4 port, which allows up to 100 Mbps Ethernet. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 01:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

HDMI "style" of connectors can and do get used to carry other things besides HDMI signals. The small size of the connector is very convenient and cheaply available, the cables are also readily available. Any connector can actually be used for any purpose, it is just by convention that it is used for a specific set of signals. For example DMX-512 often uses the standard 3 pin XLR connector, whihc is actually intended for audio signals. The reason being the widespread availability of low cost cables for the 3 pin XLR. The actual DMX standard calls for a 5 pin XLR "style" connector, but 5 pin cables are hard to come by. I have not specifically looked at the Dell manual, but it is quite probable they decided to make use of an already existing high frequency infrastructure (cables & connectors) rather than trying to create a new one. old codger 71.217.8.167 (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

HDMI 1.4b ?

This article needs to be updated to include a brief discussion of 1.4b. As I understand it, 1.4b includes additional standards for compatibility with SAT 3D signals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.95.50 (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Haven't found any information from reliable sources on HDMI 1.4b but added a sentence that it was released on October 11, 2011. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The HDMI Monopoly

one thing that ought to be in the article is mention of the fact that HDMI is a tightly controlled monopoly, it is far more than a spec. Small companies are locked out of the market for HDMI products. Only big companies with high sales volumes can afford to make HDMI products. In order to produce an HDMI product, you have to pay a licensing fee of $10000 USD per year plus a royalty on each item sold. This means that as a company you have to sell many thousands of units of product per year, just to be able to justify the yearly license fee. Small companies generally do not achieve that kind of sales volume. This license is vigorously and boastfully enforced by the www.HDMI.org 73.169.8.167 (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC) – IP adress fixed by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC), author seems to have tried to hide.

You might want to look up the definition of the term monopoly. A thing (such as HDMI) cannot be a monopoly; the monopoly (if it exists) is held by whomever/whatever owns the exclusive rights to whatever is dominant. It is not a thing but a concept. It could be said that the IP holders hold a monopoly on HDMI products, but that is simply another way of saying it is a proprietary standard. Everything else you mentioned is already in the article. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 12:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are they allowed to gather money from HDMI production? It's not like they have invented something. It's just an ordinary audio+video in digital from going through one cable. Cheerz, Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.64.209 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Article could clarify the role of HDMI Licensing, LLC. - Rod57 (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Compatibility with DVI

Editorial: About halfway down this section there's a sentence "All HDMI devices must support sRGB encoding." It looks to me like it's out of context. If you remove it, the succeeding sentence then follows from the preceding one. I don't know where the intruding sentence belongs, because this is the first mention of sRGB in the article. If we remove the intruder, sRGB first turns up considerably further down, under "Version 1.0 to 1.2". Nowhere does it appear in blue text, so anyone not knowing or guessing what it means would be puzzled enough, even without its baldly (and badly?) appearing in the middle the DVI section.

Faute de mieux, the sentence could be placed at the start of the "Version 1.0 to 1.2" section. Or it could just be excised. Any arguments please? L0ngpar1sh (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I combined that sentence into the sentence about HDMI devices having to support sRGB video in the Audio/Video section. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

connector orientation

The photos and diagrams on this page show the connector in different orientations, /---\ and \---/. The article should show the standard horizontal and vertical orientations, and all images in the article should conform. I am using two small devices alternately with the same stiff cable. The orientation of the HDMI plug on the two devices differs, making the cable want to flip one of the devices over. Which device is correct, I wonder; one of the design teams got it wrong.
Encyclopedant (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In most devices I've seen, the narrow side goes up, but I don't know if this is a standard. --uKER (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Audio without video, possible?

Can HDMI carry audio without video? I haven't been able to find a conclusive answer be it in the article or the web, but I tend to think it can't be done. --uKER (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Royal We?

why is there in the bottom paragraph of the problems subsection references to 'we'?

e.g.

[On another note, if we change the Blu-ray player to a different brand the problem disappears.]

On top of the 'we', this sentence looks like it belongs more in a forum rather than a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.179.108 (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole "problems" section is pretty clearly copy pasted from somewhere else. Maybe ehow. I say delete it. 129.237.215.10 (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Indent fixed by Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Resolutions.

It may be useful to list the normal resolutions that HDHI supports for TV (as at Aug. 2012. 202.74.169.34 (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Gerry Lavell glavell@hotmail.com

HDMI 1.4v ??

I've seen a few HDMI cables on the internet advertising themselves as HDMI 1.4v. Cant find any information on this standard. Anyone know anything about it or how it relates to version 1.4a/b?

Did it ever occur to you that the V is just short for version? See also paragraph 2.3 of this wiki article. PizzaMan (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

HDMI 2.0

Since the existence of the HDMI 2.0 specification has been officially announced by the hdmi forum, i think it deserves to be mentioned, so i added it, with proper references. The details of the specification haven't been announced yet, but that doesnt take away from the fact that the specification is officially confirmed to exist. It exists, it's relevant to the general public, it should be on WP... PizzaMan (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)